2010 Brings New Laws for California Drivers
Most people in California would agree that driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol is a very bad idea. Whether you embrace the moral argument, fearing for the safety of innocent passengers, pedestrians or occupants in other cars or focus more on fiscal ramifications, understanding the enormous financial cost associated with defending a DUI charge (not to mention property damage and personal injury), few would argue that driving while intoxicated is no big deal.
So, why is California’s DUI problem worse than ever? Why are drivers continuing to make poor decisions with regard to drinking and driving? Perhaps it is a combination of factors. On the one hand, being under the influence likely reduces a driver’s ability to determine whether they are legally competent to get behind the wheel, especially those with chronic alcohol or substance abuse problems. On the other hand, California has some pretty lenient DUI laws and, when combined with the relatively small chance of begin pulled over, offers very little in the way of deterrence.
For instance, in a recent year approximately 1.4 million US drivers were arrested for DUI, less than 1 percent of the 159 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year. And take Dylan Morse, the 19-year-old drunk driver who was convicted of killing 22-year-old Alex Ruiz from Calistoga, California. Morse was driving at nearly twice the legal limit and was originally sentenced to twelve years in prison. However, a judge in Sonoma County recently reduced the sentence to three years. Morse is the son of Merced County’s DA; his passenger, who was also his best friend, currently lies in a coma as a result of the accident.
California law enforcement officials recognize that few drunk drivers ever get caught and are intensifying efforts to identify offenders by declaring 2010 to be the “Year of the DUI Checkpoint”. Yes, California is finally getting tougher on drinking and driving. The state plans to spend an additional $3 million for DUI checkpoints and the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) will provided funding for more than 2,500 sobriety checkpoints, up almost 50% from last year.
And that’s not all. Sacramento has acknowledged California’s anemic drinking and driving laws and plans to beef up DUI punishment in 2010; thus those convicted of driving under the influence will see some significant changes. Those convicted of a second misdemeanor DUI offense will now have to obtain a restricted driver’s license after the 90-day suspension period is over. Those convicted of a third misdemeanor DUI will now be subject to a six month driver’s license suspension. Also, after a second or third DUI conviction, an ignition interlock device (IID) will be required, which prevents a car from starting if the driver has alcohol in his breath. A fourth DUI is now considered a felony in California.
Some first time DUI offenders will no longer get a, relatively, free pass. A five year pilot program in four California counties, including Los Angeles County, will run from July 1, 2010 and will require an IID (ignition interlock device) to be installed in each motor vehicle owned by a first-time DUI offender as a condition of reissuing a restricted driver’s license, being issued a driver’s license, or having driving privileges reinstated subsequent to a DUI conviction. The device must be installed on every vehicle owned by the driver, as well as all vehicles he or she is allowed to drive. The interlock device will be required for five months unless bodily injury was involved in the incident; in that case, the device will need to be installed for a full year. Subsequent DUI’s will mean longer IID installation periods. The law also requires the IID installer to notify the DMV if the device is tampered with or bypassed after installation.
The risk of getting pulled over for DUI may also increase due to the new “Slow Down and Move Over” law which requires drivers to now change lanes or slow down if an emergency vehicle, construction vehicle, or tow truck with flashing lights is stopped on the side of the road. Failure to do so will likely result in the driver being pulled over and ticketed. The law, codified as Section 21809 of the California Vehicle Code, requires a person driving a vehicle on a freeway and approaching in a lane immediately adjacent to a stationary, authorized emergency vehicle that displays emergency lights, or a stationary tow truck that displays flashing amber warning lights, to safely make a lane change from that lane, or slow to a reasonable speed.
Finally, have you ever witnessed a fellow driver on the 405 watching TV as he drives along side you down the freeway? I have. It’s a pretty scary thing. New for 2010 is the “TV Law”, which prohibits driving a motor vehicle with a television receiver, video monitor, television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal if the equipment is designed, operated and configured in a manner that allows the driver to view the television broadcast or video signal while operating the vehicle.
Given the prevalence of drunk driving in California, these new laws, while sorely needed, do not go far enough to help alcohol and drug abusers. California DUI law needs to mimic recent drug initiatives by identifying substance abusers and providing incentives for chronic substance abusers to seek long-term treatment. While physically preventing an intoxicated individual from driving a car may be effective in preventing injuries to passengers and fellow drivers, it provides little encouragement for permanent rehabilitation and recovery.
Millie Anne Cavanaugh, Esq. is a Los Angeles immigration lawyer and former insurance defense attorney. She is licensed to practice law in California and Massachusetts. The information contained herein is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as a solicitation for your business or as legal advice on any subject matter. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of this information without seeking independent legal advice.
January 1, 2010 at 11:05 am
I totally agree that as long as there is no focus on treatment that the problem will continue to go on unabated. When an alcoholic drinks the last thing they think about is whether or not they should drive. If they tell themselves, I’ll only have one drink, they don’t even have control over that – I still believe serious consequences are important (that’s the wake up call), but if the state required REAL treatment (not a few AA meetings and some outpatient therapy) some of these people might finally figure out that they have a problem that isn’t going to go away.